Transcript Highlights:

• needed to be made, they would negotiate them, and then send them to the Florida Supreme Court for ratification

Summary: The Rules Committee took up a large agenda of bills, with many measures reported favorably after brief explanations, amendments, and testimony. Early bills included CS/SB 658 on lien waivers and releases, which was amended to preserve enforceability despite form differences and then passed; CS/CS/SB 736 on brownfields redevelopment, which drew support from business and redevelopment interests and passed; and CS/SB 1002 on utility service restrictions, which was amended to bar certain building or fire code provisions affecting fuel-source choices and then passed despite opposition from environmental advocates. The committee also advanced CS/CS/SB 1132 on right-to-repair for certain equipment, where manufacturers, dealer representatives, and industry groups warned the bill could undermine dealer networks and existing repair programs, while supporters argued it would improve consumer access and help farmers and equipment owners. The bill still passed. Other measures reported favorably included CS/SB 1378 on restitution for leaving the scene of property-damage crashes, CS/CS/SB 768 on foreign-country controlling interests in health care licensing, CS/SB 772 on school access to glucagon for diabetes emergencies, CS/SB 1400 on removal of nonconsensual altered sexual depictions, and CS/SB 1696 on transportation network company impersonation and transit funding. A major portion of the meeting focused on affordable housing. CS/SB 1730, a follow-up to the Live Local Act, made several changes to zoning, height, density, parking, moratorium, and enforcement provisions, with members raising concerns about parking reductions, attorney’s fees, local control, and impacts in the Keys and other sensitive areas. Supporters said the bill closes loopholes and improves workforce housing implementation, while some witnesses urged additional exemptions for areas of critical state concern. The bill was reported favorably after amendment. Later, the committee considered several bills from Senator Leak, including CS/SB 576 on service of process, CS/SB 606 on public lodging and food service establishments, and CS/SB 1164 on electronic delivery of landlord-tenant notices. CS/SB 606 drew substantial debate over whether hotels and extended-stay properties should be able to remove nonpaying guests without treating them like residential tenants; the sponsor said the bill clarifies transient occupancy and removes mandatory arrest provisions, and it passed. CS/SB 1164, which allows email notice delivery by agreement, passed despite concerns from tenant advocates that the bill should include clearer consent and safeguards. The committee also approved CS/SB 1374 on school district reporting of educator arrests and misconduct, CS/SB 940 on third-party restaurant reservation sales, and began hearing CS/SB 1690 on surrendered infants, which would authorize infant safety devices or “baby boxes” as a legal surrender option, with supportive testimony from proponents describing crisis situations and the need for anonymous surrender options.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill itself, I think most of you are very familiar with, but it's going to go retroactive so that

Summary: The Senate Revenue and Tax Committee met to consider Senate Bill 1, sponsored by Senator Jonathan Dismang, which continues the state’s long-running effort to reduce Arkansas income tax rates. Dismang said the bill would lower the personal income tax rate retroactive to January 1, 2026 and delay the corporate income tax change until the following January, bringing the rate down from 7% to 3.7%. He also said the bill would use existing surplus funds and estimated that a person making $65,000 would see their effective tax burden reduced by about 45% compared with earlier rates. The committee heard several witnesses in opposition, including a United Methodist pastor/social worker, a parent describing her son’s disability and need for supported living services, representatives from Arkansas Appleseed and Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and a Marshallese community advocate. They argued that Arkansas should preserve revenue for public schools, health care, food assistance, housing, rural hospitals, early childhood education, and disability services, and said the tax cuts would disproportionately benefit higher-income taxpayers while providing little relief to working families. Several speakers cited low state spending relative to national averages and warned that further cuts would worsen existing service gaps. In closing, Dismang and other supporters said the state can be both compassionate and competitive, that no essential services would be cut by the bill, and that Arkansas has continued to grow revenue despite prior tax reductions. Members emphasized balancing service funding with economic competitiveness and noted the legislature’s focus on lower-income tax brackets in earlier reforms. The committee then voted to do pass SB1, and the bill was approved.

Transcript Highlights:

• That'll be retroactive this year.

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 1001, sponsored by Representative Les Eaves, which would lower the Arkansas personal income tax rate to 3.7% retroactive to the current year and reduce the corporate income tax rate to 4.1% beginning in 2027. Eaves argued the bill continues a decade-long strategy of broad-based tax relief, saying it would help working families, keep Arkansas competitive, and reduce future surpluses rather than cut services. He said the personal rate change would affect income above $26,400 for taxpayers in the lower table and that the average taxpayer could see roughly $800 to $1,000 in annual savings from recent tax cuts overall. Several opponents testified that the state cannot afford additional tax cuts given existing needs. Arkansas Appleseed, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a pastor, a nonprofit worker, and a parent of an adult with disabilities all argued that Arkansas should prioritize funding for public schools, early childhood education, health care, rural hospitals, food assistance, and supported living services. They said the state faces high food insecurity, underfunded education, and growing demands on the budget from federal changes and state programs such as Education Freedom Accounts, and that the tax cut would disproportionately benefit higher earners while providing little relief to most families. In closing, Eaves and Rep. Ray defended the bill as part of a broader pro-growth tax policy, saying the legislature has continued to fund major priorities while also returning money to taxpayers. Ray said the state should not wait to help taxpayers until every social problem is solved and argued the cumulative tax savings have benefited working families. The committee then adopted a motion to pass HB 1001, and the bill passed by voice vote before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill itself, I think most of you are very familiar with, but it's going to go retroactive so that

Summary: The Senate Revenue and Tax Committee considered Senate Bill 1, sponsored by Senator Jonathan Dismang, which would continue Arkansas’s phased income tax reductions, lowering the personal income tax rate to 3.7% and delaying the corporate income tax change until the following January. Dismang said the bill was part of a long-running effort begun in 2013 to reduce rates using conservative budgeting and surplus revenue, and he estimated the change would reduce the effective tax burden for a person making $65,000 by about 45%. Committee members supporting the bill emphasized that the measure would not cut state services and argued Arkansas should balance competitiveness with funding essential programs. Several speakers opposed the bill, including a clergy member/social worker, a parent advocating for disability services, representatives from Arkansas Appleseed and Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and a community advocate from the Arkansas Coalition of Marshallese. They argued the state should preserve revenue for public schools, health care, housing, food assistance, early childhood education, and supported living services, citing underfunded schools, a waitlist for pre-K, hospital and child care pressures, and the needs of low-income and vulnerable residents. Some speakers said the tax cuts would disproportionately benefit higher-income taxpayers while providing little relief to working families. In closing, Dismang said Arkansas could be both compassionate and competitive and that no essential services would be cut because the state is operating with a surplus. After discussion, Senator Dismang moved do pass, Senator Petty seconded, and the committee approved SB 1 by voice vote. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill itself, I think most of you are very familiar with, but it's going to go retroactive so that

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: The Senate Revenue and Tax Committee met to consider Senate Bill 1, presented by Senator Jonathan Dismang as the next step in Arkansas’s long-running effort to reduce the state income tax rate. He said the bill would lower the rate from 7% to 3.7%, with the personal income tax change retroactive to January 1, 2026, and the corporate income tax change taking effect the following January. In response to a question, he estimated that a person making $65,000 would see their tax bill fall from roughly $3,600 to just over $2,000, or about a 45% reduction in effective tax rate. Several members of the public testified against the bill, arguing that further tax cuts would reduce revenue needed for education, health care, food assistance, housing, and disability services. Speakers included a clergy member and social worker from Little Rock, a parent describing the high cost of supported living services for her son with cerebral palsy, representatives from Arkansas Appleseed and Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and a Marshallese community advocate. They emphasized underfunded public schools, early childhood education waitlists, hospital and child care pressures, and the view that tax cuts disproportionately benefit higher-income taxpayers while vulnerable Arkansans rely on state-funded services. In closing, Senator Dismang said the bill was part of a decade-long tax reduction effort and argued that Arkansas could be both compassionate and competitive without cutting essential services, noting the state was operating with a surplus. Senator Petty and Senator Boyd echoed support, saying the state should focus on outcomes, maintain competitiveness, and that no services would be cut. The committee then voted do pass on SB 1, and the bill passed by voice vote before the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• It adds a sentence that says the Department, being the Department of Labor, shall not retroactively apply

Bills: HB3239, HB4317, HB4321, HB4322, HB3832, HB3673, HB3783, HB3800, HB2956, HB3960, HB2471, HB3338

Keywords: veterinary medicine, definitions, animal husbandry, board of veterinary examiners, telemedicine, veterinarian-client relationship, accounting, CPA, licensure, educational requirements, reciprocity, professional conduct, elevator safety, inspections, Department of Labor, safety standards, regulatory compliance, funeral services licensing, funeral director, embalmer

Transcript Highlights:

• So how would—so this be retroactive?

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 1178, the Foreign Interference Restriction and Enforcement Act. Senator Grohl explained that the bill expands state restrictions and disclosure requirements related to foreign countries of concern and designated foreign terrorist organizations, including foreign-agent registration, gift bans for public officials, ethics training, procurement limits for IT and critical infrastructure, restrictions on sister-city/sister-state affiliations, changes to linkage institutes and in-state tuition provisions, and new criminal penalties for certain offenses committed to benefit foreign governments or terrorist organizations. Senator Polsky raised questions about higher education, election technology, federal FARA overlap, and whether the bill would affect candidates or events involving CARE; the sponsor responded that the bill focuses on foreign countries of concern, ownership/control, and gifts, and does not prohibit speaking at events. An amendment clarifying definitions, willful violations, and ethics-training content was adopted, and after supportive testimony from Kelly Curry and Robert Pierce, the committee reported CS for SB 1178 favorably. The committee then considered Senate Bill 1622, which provides a one-time waiver of the automatic fine for a late-filed financial disclosure if the filing is made before the maximum fine accrues and the filer has not previously received such a waiver or accrued the maximum fine in prior years. Carrie Stillman of the Commission on Ethics testified that the bill supports transparency and makes the fine and appeals process more efficient, noting it was a commission recommendation. The bill was reported favorably. Finally, the committee held confirmation hearings on appointments in Tabs 3 through 26. No senator requested separate votes on any appointee, no public testimony was offered, and the block of appointments was approved and recommended favorably to the full Senate.

Transcript Highlights:

• > a<01:17:14.560> stub<01:17:14.800> issue Finding number five had to do with retroactive
• pay adjustments for seven Retroactive pay adjustments for seven employees.
• which resulted in seven employees who made some kind of mistake in their timesheet and received a retroactive
• and and mistake in their time sheet um and and received<01:18:16.560> a<01:18:16.719> retroactive
• received a retroactive pay adjustment. received a retroactive pay adjustment.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from the legislative auditor on a performance audit of the governor’s office and lieutenant governor’s office covering July 1, 2022 through December 31, 2024. The audit reviewed receipts, inventory, payroll, and non-payroll expenditures and found 12 findings, concluding the office generally did not comply with the criteria tested because of internal control deficiencies. The auditor said four of five prior findings that remained relevant were not fully resolved, and that the problems were widespread across financial operations, creating opportunities for waste and fraud, though no evidence of wrongdoing or misuse of funds was found. The main findings involved weak segregation of duties, late vendor payments, inaccurate reimbursements and vendor payments, missing documentation, and poor receipt management. Auditors said one employee handled purchasing, receiving, payment processing, and inventory functions without adequate oversight; vendors were often paid late, resulting in more than $1,000 in late/reactivation fees; reimbursements and some state airplane payments contained errors; and many vendor payments, reimbursements, and purchasing card transactions lacked required support. The office also failed to collect about $12,000 for events at the governor’s residence, did not fully process several deposits, and lacked documentation for some billed or deposited amounts. Members reacted strongly to the repeated control failures and the lack of documentation, with several saying the issues were pervasive and concerning even if the dollar amounts were not large. Questions focused on whether the problems reflected different treatment of vendors versus employee expenses, whether restitution was being sought, and whether legislation was needed. The auditor responded that the state already has the necessary policies and procedures, and that the issue is implementation and oversight by the governor’s office, not new legislation. The auditor also said the governor’s office had been receptive and had begun taking steps to address the findings.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate bill fully repeals the retroactivity provision of a provision in last year's condo bill affecting
• So, one, the bill does not have a retroactive provision.
• I can seek to get you one, but I know we don't have any retroactive language in the bill.
• I can seek to get you one, but I know we don't have any retroactive language in the bill.
• So there's nothing retroactive in there.

Summary: The Senate began with opening prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and several recognitions, including interns, Denim Day awareness, and a resolution honoring Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange on the 50th anniversary of the fall of Saigon. The chamber also observed a moment of silence for former Senator Karen Johnson Gendron. After routine business, the Senate took up several special-order bills. The first major bill, transportation offenses involving death, increased penalties for repeat DUI/BUI manslaughter and vehicular homicide offenses. An amendment added penalties for refusal to submit to breath or urine testing and required law enforcement to notify suspects of those penalties. The bill passed 37-0. The Senate then passed SB 306 on Medicaid providers, requiring broader after-hours and holiday access to care and setting network standards for Medicaid managed care plans, also by a 37-0 vote. The chamber next considered a major condominium and cooperative associations bill responding to post-Surfside safety and financial concerns. Senators described the measure as balancing building safety with financial relief, extending reserve-study deadlines, allowing temporary reserve relief after inspections, tightening oversight of managers and inspectors, and adjusting voting, resale, and reserve rules. After extensive debate and praise from members for the bill’s sponsors and staff, the bill passed 37-0. The longest discussion centered on a constitutional amendments/petition process bill aimed at curbing fraud in citizen initiative petitions. Sponsors argued that the 2024 petition process was plagued by fraud and identity theft and proposed tighter rules for circulators, faster submission deadlines, voter notification, penalties, and limits on petition handling. Senators offered and adopted multiple amendments, including changes to petition-circulator definitions, invalid-signature thresholds, and voter notification procedures. After a substitute amendment was withdrawn, the Senate continued debating the underlying amended bill, with members split between concerns about election integrity and worries that the bill would burden volunteers and make it harder for citizen initiatives to qualify.

Transcript Highlights:

• there might be enough resources that the state high school league could utilize to remedy kind of retroactively
• league could utilize to remedy<00:32:20.960> kind<00:32:21.120> of<00:32:21.279> retroactively
• <00:32:22.080> the remedy kind of retroactively the remedy kind of retroactively the circumstance
• and the Durkin Glenn family to their own devices still because I don't know if any of that can be retroactive
• I don't know if any of that can be retroactive. I do believe that there probably is more out there.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and it says also it's not retroactive, so that's good news.
• And it says also it's not retroactive, so that's good news.
• And it says also it's not retroactive, so that's good news.
• And it says also it's not retroactive, so that's good news.
• And it says also it's not retroactive, so that's good news.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There is an effective date difference, and it is not retroactive in the House sections.
• It's<00:16:22.240> not<00:16:22.560> retroactive<00:16:23.199> in<00:16:23.440><
• c> the<00:16:23.519> house It's not retroactive in the house It's not retroactive in the house

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, sections 20 and 21, the short line railroad credit transferability retroactive to tax year 2024.
• :12.600> transferability railroad credit transferability railroad credit transferability retroactive
• <01:19:17.840> We've retroactive to uh, tax year 2024.
• We've retroactive to uh, tax year 2024.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I asked you to explore making this bill retroactive so Lānaʻi fire survivors aren’t left behind, but
• making a year ago I asked you to explore making this<00:57:24.480> bill<00:57:24.920> retroactive
• <00:57:25.880> so<00:57:26.280> L<00:57:26.760> fire this bill retroactive so
• L fire this bill retroactive so L fire survivors<00:57:27.720> aren't<00:57:28.079> left

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee opened by outlining hearing procedures, including a two-minute limit for live testimony, a request not to repeat written testimony, and a reminder about decorum. The first bill heard was SB 697, which would create a nonrefundable individual income tax credit for expenses to retrofit residences with wind-resistive devices. The Insurance Division said it supported the concept but noted it may need an appropriation or outside expertise to develop certification standards, while the Department of Taxation said the bill should retain a third-party certification requirement if the Insurance Division cannot administer the credit. The Hawaii Insurers Council supported the bill, and the Tax Foundation suggested a subsidy-style program would be more efficient than a tax credit and criticized the bill’s 100% credit structure. A testifier in support argued the measure would help homeowners fortify houses against hurricanes and reduce shelter demand; written testimony from several others, including HIEMA, was noted as supportive. The committee then moved through SB 76, which would require the Hawaii Property Insurance Association to provide commercial property coverage after two private-market denials, and SB 83, which would require insurers to give advance written premium-change notices and explanations to common-interest community policyholders and the insurance commissioner, along with a report on premium increases. For SB 76, the State Insurance Division stood on its written comments, and testimony in support came from Michael Honda, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, and Jessica Herzog. SB 83 drew more extensive discussion: the Insurance Division supported the need for better transparency, while the Hawaii Insurers Council opposed the bill, arguing that agents—not insurers—typically communicate with AOAO boards and that the measure could worsen an already difficult market. Insurance Division staff acknowledged widespread complaints from condo associations about lack of transparency and said the division had received many calls about premium increases and nonrenewals. The discussion on SB 83 expanded into broader concerns about condo insurance, nonrenewals, surplus lines, and the difficulty of getting timely explanations for large premium increases. Committee members and testifiers described older buildings struggling to fund repairs and upgrades while facing steep insurance costs, and some urged the committee to craft baseline statutory protections for unit owners. The Insurance Division said surplus lines serve a critical gap-filling role and warned against regulating that market in a way that could slow access to coverage. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and again, not being an attorney, the way I read this is that this is a retroactive action.
• retroactive retroactive action. action. action. any<02:07:11.520> action<02:07:11.920> taken
• <02:09:35.920> effect Representative Palazov said that the bill would not have a retroactive
• He responded that if it repeals the immunity, he would say it is retroactive.
• He said he would like to take any questions, and when asked whether the bill would be retroactive to

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Health, Human Services, and Elderly Affairs heard HB 1790-FN, which would address involuntary admissions for certain individuals with a substance use disorder. Representative Lucy Weber introduced the bill for Representative Long, and the committee heard extensive testimony both in support of and in opposition to the proposal. Opponents, including John Burns of SOS Recovery and Jake Barry of New Futures, argued that involuntary commitment is not well supported by research, can retraumatize people, may increase overdose risk after release, and could undermine New Hampshire’s existing recovery and harm-reduction efforts. They emphasized that treatment should be voluntary, trauma-informed, and paired with housing, recovery supports, and other community-based services. Representative Long said he was willing to accept DHHS’s request to amend the bill into a study commission, though he expressed concern that a prior state study had not led to action. He said the commission should focus on implementation details, including where people would be placed, staffing, withdrawal management, elopement prevention, length of commitment, and aftercare. He described involuntary commitment as one tool for people with severe dangerous addictions, distinct from drug court, and said it could help avoid criminal records. Committee members asked about capacity at New Hampshire Hospital and how the proposal would work in practice. DHHS officials Katya Fox and Cynthia Pabonis testified that the bill raises major policy and fiscal concerns. They said New Hampshire’s current system has benefited from investments in naloxone, medication-assisted treatment, recovery centers, and community-based services, and that those investments have helped reduce overdose deaths. They estimated the bill would require a new 70-bed facility costing about $40 million to build and about $33.3 million annually to operate, with only a small portion offset by insurance, plus more than $600,000 in annual legal costs and additional staffing and system changes. They also said New Hampshire Hospital has 185 beds, with about 100 patients typically ready for less restrictive settings, and that housing shortages are a major bottleneck. NAMI New Hampshire also testified in opposition, saying families often want any possible treatment for loved ones but still opposed the bill. No vote or final action was taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And again, not being an attorney, the way I read this is that this is a retroactive action.
• And again, not being an attorney, the way I read this is that this is a retroactive action.
• I read this as a retroactive action.
• >> Well, if it repeals the immunity, I would say it's retroactive.
• <02:12:55.760> Immunity would say it's retroactive. Immunity would say it's retroactive.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Explanation: Yes, sir, very simply, it removes the applicability clause, so there will be no retroactivity
• Yes, sir, very simply, it removes the applicability clause, so there will be no retroactivity, this will

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The Senate convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, attendance, journal approval, and numerous guest introductions, including several judges shadowing senators, Chief Justice Ann Timmer, mining industry representatives, a doctor of the day, and student and youth visitors. The chamber then moved into Committee of the Whole to consider a calendar of bills, with several measures receiving committee amendments and do-pass recommendations, including SB 1272 on Douglas port of entry funding, SB 1327 on Arizona Board of Regents restrictions involving foreign countries, SB 1400 on public safety employee information, SB 1519 on off-highway vehicles, SB 1627 on unmanned aircraft, SB 1630 on AHCCCS home- and community-based services and mental illness, HB 1720 on parenting time, SB 1763 on school district finances, SB 1826 on rural wayfinding signs, and SB 1827 on vertiports. Members offered brief explanations on some bills, especially SB 1519 and SB 1720, which addressed off-road vehicle use and equal parenting time standards, respectively. On third reading, the Senate passed SB 1272, SB 1327, SB 1400, SB 1519, SB 1627, SB 1630, SB 1720, SB 1763, and SB 1826. SB 1827 failed on third reading by a 15-15 vote. Senators gave explanations on several measures, including concerns about confidentiality in SB 1400, environmental and trail impacts in SB 1519, and the parenting-time standards in SB 1720. SB 1763 passed overwhelmingly, while SB 1630 passed 28-2. The chamber then moved to a second Committee of the Whole for additional bills. In the second COW, SB 1111 on automatic license plate readers drew the most extensive debate. Senator Payne described guardrails such as case-number access, training, and penalties for misuse, while Senator Hoffman offered a sweeping hostile amendment to sharply limit use and impose civil penalties and a private right of action, arguing the bill enabled mass surveillance. The Hoffman amendment failed 13-17, and the Payne-backed amendment was adopted; the bill was then advanced as amended. Senators also considered SB 1214 on stem-cell/regenerative therapy, SB 1683 on foreign land ownership advisory prohibitions, SB 1686 on a memorial at Wesley Bolin Plaza, and SB 1745 on local excise tax rate limits, all of which received do-pass recommendations after amendments where applicable. The Committee of the Whole report was adopted, with further floor debate continuing on SB 1111 over privacy, public records access, and surveillance concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• The A8 deals with retroactive redaction of existing reports filed by local government candidates.
• This one deals with the A9 deals with retroactive redaction of existing reports filed with the Campaign

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee took up House File 3363, a bill focused on protecting the privacy and safety of legislators and other candidates by limiting public access to home addresses and related information in campaign finance and election filings. The author said the bill was prompted by the events of June 14 and was intended to make temporary Campaign Finance Board changes permanent. No public testimony was offered, and the author explained that the bill had been narrowed and reorganized after a Senate delete-everything amendment expanded its scope. Members then considered a series of amendments. The A1 amendment, which added security devices and security services as allowable non-campaign disbursements, was adopted after questions about family relationships and whether payments to relatives could qualify. The A2 through A9 amendments were also adopted, covering data classification or redaction of street addresses in Campaign Finance Board reports, lobbyist gift reports, candidate affidavits of candidacy, nominating petitions, local government candidate reports, and retroactive redaction of existing reports. The A4 amendment was modified by A12 to apply city, state, and ZIP code reporting to political committees, political funds, and party units. The A13 amendment removed a proposed misdemeanor penalty tied to disclosure violations, and the A14 amendment was adopted to give caucus and chamber leaders access to actual candidate addresses, though members noted the language still needed refinement and that the intent was to continue working on it. There was discussion about whether the address-access language in A14 would apply to all candidates or only legislative candidates, and whether it would affect residency disputes; staff said it would not change complaint or court processes, but could be a data point. Several members said they had concerns about the breadth of the language but were willing to keep working on it. After the amendments were adopted, the committee moved to the bill as amended and recommended that House File 3363 be re-referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• trained homegrown workforce will lessen delays caused by labor shortages and help prevent costly retroactive
• trained homegrown workforce will lessen delays caused by labor shortages and help prevent costly retroactive

Keywords: 996, all

Summary: The committee first took up HB 322, which would create a transportation trust fund and transportation program fund. The sponsor offered and the committee adopted an amendment striking the section that would have imposed a 1% gross receipts tax on electricity sales. After a recap of the bill’s remaining provisions, including a $400 million seed amount and future transfers from motor vehicle excise tax revenue, the committee heard brief support from Associated Contractors of New Mexico and the Asphalt Pavement Association and no opposition. The amended bill then passed on a roll-call vote. The committee then heard HB 270, a public works/apprenticeship bill that would require contributions to approved apprenticeship and training programs or to the Public Works Apprentice and Training Fund for public works construction projects, while eliminating an exemption for certain road, highway, utility, and maintenance work. Supporters, including union carpenters, electrical workers, the building trades council, and apprenticeship advocates, argued the bill would expand training, help address labor shortages, and provide a return on public investment. Opponents from utility contractors, highway contractors, and Associated Contractors of New Mexico said they already operate federally approved in-house training programs, warned the bill would raise project costs, and argued some trades have no accessible approved programs. Members questioned how the bill would interact with existing in-house programs, whether rural contractors and nonunion firms would be affected, and whether the state-approved fund and federal highway training requirements could conflict. A proposed amendment to exempt projects of $50 million or less was introduced but tabled. After extensive debate, the committee voted 6-5 to pass HB 270. The meeting also included discussion of a prior procedural error in which HB 270 had been heard before being properly assigned, which the chair said rendered that earlier action void. At the end of the meeting, the committee received a brief New Mexico Department of Transportation District 3 presentation on district projects, budget, and construction status.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill contains a retroactive date of January 8, 2025, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
• It stipulates that the certificate issued pursuant to this act is retroactive to calendar year 2023.

Bills: HB2026, HB2027, HB2028, HB2031, HB2078, HB2094, HB2095, HB2101, HB2102, HB2103, HB2260, HB2278, HB2827, HB2932, HB2933, HB2934, HB2986, HCM2009, HCR2038

Keywords: assured water supply, groundwater, commingling, commingled water, water supply, Arizona Department of Water Resources, ADWR, active management area, AMA, subdivision plat, development approval, water rights, municipal provider, private water company, certificate of assured water supply, written commitment of water service, groundwater savings credits, gray water reuse, replenishment district, Central Arizona Project

Summary: The committee on Natural Resources, Energy and Water heard and advanced several bills and memorials focused on water policy, mining, environmental regulation, and professional licensing. HB 2260, a veterinary board measure, HB 2986, an ADEQ cleanup/omnibus bill, and HB 2827, which extends Pinal AMA groundwater fee authority and related fund deadlines, all received due pass recommendations on unanimous 10-0 votes. HB 2078, clarifying that public notice for new aggregate mine reclamation plans applies only to new plans and can be satisfied by certain local notices, also passed 9-1 after testimony from the sponsor and mining industry representatives. HCM 2009, urging Congress to amend the Antiquities Act, address split estate mineral rights, and streamline mining permits, passed 5-4 along party lines and drew support from mining interests and opposition from members concerned about federal land protection and monuments. HCR 2038, supporting a seven-state Colorado River agreement, passed 9-1 with testimony emphasizing the importance of a negotiated river settlement to Arizona’s economy, food supply, and national security. The committee then took up a series of water-management bills that generated more extensive debate. HB 2026, which narrows how ADWR evaluates water availability by focusing on proposed dedicated supplies even if commingled in delivery systems, passed 6-4 despite concerns that it echoed previously vetoed language and could weaken water security. HB 2027, as amended, would limit application of Pinal AMA-style rules in the Phoenix AMA and alter physical-availability review for applicants enrolled in the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District; it passed 6-4 after strong opposition from CAP, municipal water users, and ADWR, who warned it could undermine assured water supply designations and CAGRD obligations, while home builders argued it was a fairness issue for development. HB 2028, removing ADWR’s exemption from appealable administrative-completeness determinations, passed 6-4 over agency concerns that it would turn deficiency letters into formal appeals and add workload, while supporters said it would give applicants the same legal rights as other regulated parties. The committee also approved HB 2031, an emergency measure setting a deadline for filing grandfathered groundwater rights in the Wilcox AMA, on a 5-4 vote, and HB 2094, which would require ADWR to re-review certain assured water supply determinations and retroactively validate some applications using specified models, also on a 5-4 vote; both were described as similar to previously vetoed measures. The transcript ends as the committee begins HB 2095, which would expand the factors ADWR considers in determining groundwater depth and physical availability for assured water supply applications, with an amendment being explained but no final action captured in the excerpt.